CNRS: The Mystery of the Martian Moons Solved

[bystander]

Solved: The Mystery of the Martian Moons
French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) | 2016 July 04

The aura of mystery surrounding Mars has long been intensified by its curious pair of moons: Phobos and Deimos, whose origins have remained clouded until now.

[c][youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgdkMPuCWc[/youtube]The Formation of Mars' Moons - Credit: LabEx UnivEarthS[/c]

No planet stirs human imagination quite like Mars. As non-stop land-based missions continue to probe its past and search for possible traces of life, another intrigue—this time high above its skyline—had long baffled scientists: how did Mars end up with its two small moons, Phobos and Deimos, first spotted in 1877? This riddle may have just been solved by a multidisciplinary study combining French, Belgian and Japanese expertise.

Scientists have long hesitated between two hypotheses. The first suggests that the moons are asteroids like those found in the belt between Jupiter and Mars; but why they should have been trapped around Mars remains unclear. An alternative theory posits that the moons formed from the debris of a collision between Mars and a protoplanet—a planet in the making; here though, uncertainty has hovered over the mechanism producing two small satellites. “A major difficulty has been to explain why a giant impact on Mars would have left two moons so different from our own Moon, a huge single mass, that also formed from Earth undergoing such an impact,” explains planetary scientist Sébastien Charnoz of the IPG, who contributed to the new study.

According to the simulations, Mars suffered a colossal impact with a body three times smaller some 4 to 4.5 billion years ago. Debris from the collision initially accumulated into a long disk around Mars, resembling one of Saturn’s rings. Within this disk, an enormous moon a thousand times the mass of Phobos gradually formed—similar to the way in which our Moon amassed from debris created by Earth’s impact. ...

A Giant Impact: Solving the Mystery of How Mars’ Moons Formed
LabEx UnivEarthS | 2016 July 04

A Reappraisal of the Origin of Mars’ Moons
Royal Observatory of Belgium | 2016 July 04

Accretion of Phobos and Deimos in an extended debris disc stirred by transient moons - Pascal Rosenblatt et al

• Nature Geoscience (online 04 July 2016) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2742

Reconciling the Orbital and Physical Properties of the Martian Moons - Thomas Ronnet et al

• Astrophysical Journal (forthcoming)

[Chris Peterson]

Solved: The Mystery of the Martian Moons

Well, no. Why can't these releases go out with reasonable headlines? In this case, nothing has been "solved". What we have is good evidence supporting a leading hypothesis about how the Martian moons formed.

[neufer]

---

Did the collision of the large satellite create the Tharsis volcanoes

<<High resolution topographic map of Mars based on the Mars Global Surveyor laser altimeter research led by Maria Zuber and David Smith. North is at the top. Notable features include the Tharsis volcanoes in the west (including Olympus Mons), Valles Marineris to the east of Tharsis, and Hellas basin in the southern hemisphere.>>

[Evermore]

Solved: The Mystery of the Martian Moons

Well, no. Why can't these releases go out with reasonable headlines? In this case, nothing has been "solved". What we have is good evidence supporting a leading hypothesis about how the Martian moons formed.

I couldn't agree more, Chris. But I firmly believe that at least Phobos was formed when Olympus Mons belched a few or several huge belches, sending a huge amount of mineral above its atmosphere, and at the same time burying the oceans. Olympus is one HUGE and HIGH volcano. Can we know what earth's Yellowstone super volcano will do?

[Chris Peterson]

Solved: The Mystery of the Martian Moons

Well, no. Why can't these releases go out with reasonable headlines? In this case, nothing has been "solved". What we have is good evidence supporting a leading hypothesis about how the Martian moons formed.

I couldn't agree more, Chris. But I firmly believe that at least Phobos was formed when Olympus Mons belched a few or several huge belches, sending a huge amount of mineral above its atmosphere, and at the same time burying the oceans. Olympus is one HUGE and HIGH volcano. Can we know what earth's Yellowstone super volcano will do?

Olympus Mons is a shield volcano (like those on Hawaii). Such volcanoes do not produce explosive eruptions that send material high into the atmosphere, rather they form from the long term flow of low viscosity magma. That would strongly argue against your hypothesis.

[Nitpicker]

Well, they did solve the mystery, in a sense. It is just that it is not the only possible solution. I don't consider the used of "solved" in this instance to be too outrageous. Lots of models can have more than one solution. As the models improve, they might start to suggest which solution best represents what actually happened.

[Evermore]

Well, no. Why can't these releases go out with reasonable headlines? In this case, nothing has been "solved". What we have is good evidence supporting a leading hypothesis about how the Martian moons formed.

I couldn't agree more, Chris. But I firmly believe that at least Phobos was formed when Olympus Mons belched a few or several huge belches, sending a huge amount of mineral above its atmosphere, and at the same time burying the oceans. Olympus is one HUGE and HIGH volcano. Can we know what earth's Yellowstone super volcano will do?

Olympus Mons is a shield volcano (like those on Hawaii). Such volcanoes do not produce explosive eruptions that send material high into the atmosphere, rather they form from the long term flow of low viscosity magma. That would strongly argue against your hypothesis.

They can explode if water gets into the mix .. and that could be an explanation of what happened to some of Mar's water.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/shield-volcanoes Kaboom .. into the 'beyond the atmosphere.'

[Evermore]

I couldn't agree more, Chris. But I firmly believe that at least Phobos was formed when Olympus Mons belched a few or several huge belches, sending a huge amount of mineral above its atmosphere, and at the same time burying the oceans. Olympus is one HUGE and HIGH volcano. Can we know what earth's Yellowstone super volcano will do?

Olympus Mons is a shield volcano (like those on Hawaii). Such volcanoes do not produce explosive eruptions that send material high into the atmosphere, rather they form from the long term flow of low viscosity magma. That would strongly argue against your hypothesis.

They can explode if water gets into the mix .. and that could be an explanation of what happened to some of Mar's water.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/shield-volcanoes Kaboom .. into the 'beyond the atmosphere.'

With the explosion's ash also burying the balance of the remaining water, which we now know definitely exists in many places beneath the surface.

[Chris Peterson]

Olympus Mons is a shield volcano (like those on Hawaii). Such volcanoes do not produce explosive eruptions that send material high into the atmosphere, rather they form from the long term flow of low viscosity magma. That would strongly argue against your hypothesis.

They can explode if water gets into the mix .. and that could be an explanation of what happened to some of Mar's water.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/shield-volcanoes Kaboom .. into the 'beyond the atmosphere.'

With the explosion's ash also burying the balance of the remaining water, which we now know definitely exists in many places beneath the surface.

We do not know that water is present at the depths where it would interact with magma. Furthermore, we do know that the surface of Olympus Mons is mafic- basalts and related material and not volcanic ashes. This volcano is large by Earth standards, but we can understand that size because of the low gravity and lack of tectonic plate movement. Although Earth's gravity would prevent a structure from becoming so high, the same amount of material would have been ejected at hotspots like Hawaii but for tectonic drift. And in either case, the volume of both the mountain and any ejected material is trivial compared with the entire planet. And nothing about the structure looks different from typical shield volcanoes. There's no evidence of explosive eruptions.

It is reasonable to see it for what it is, a simple shield volcano that has had insignificant impact on the Martian environment.

[Evermore]

They can explode if water gets into the mix .. and that could be an explanation of what happened to some of Mar's water.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/shield-volcanoes Kaboom .. into the 'beyond the atmosphere.'

With the explosion's ash also burying the balance of the remaining water, which we now know definitely exists in many places beneath the surface.

We do not know that water is present at the depths where it would interact with magma. Furthermore, we do know that the surface of Olympus Mons is mafic- basalts and related material and not volcanic ashes. This volcano is large by Earth standards, but we can understand that size because of the low gravity and lack of tectonic plate movement. Although Earth's gravity would prevent a structure from becoming so high, the same amount of material would have been ejected at hotspots like Hawaii but for tectonic drift. And in either case, the volume of both the mountain and any ejected material is trivial compared with the entire planet. And nothing about the structure looks different from typical shield volcanoes. There's no evidence of explosive eruptions.

It is reasonable to see it for what it is, a simple shield volcano that has had insignificant impact on the Martian environment.

Without doing a simple google search to prove it we do know there is tectonic activity on Mars, or has been in the very recent past.
We 'do not know' a lot of things, Chris, like that there is NOT water present on mars at the depths it would interact with magma.
You could easily be looking at the evidence for explosive eruptions in the material the moons are made of. Just imagine, without 'forbidding' any scenario because of your own prejudices, because there is no scientific evidence to support those prejudices. It may look like a typical shield volcano only because the latest eruptions caused it to look that way.

[Chris Peterson]

We do not know that water is present at the depths where it would interact with magma. Furthermore, we do know that the surface of Olympus Mons is mafic- basalts and related material and not volcanic ashes. This volcano is large by Earth standards, but we can understand that size because of the low gravity and lack of tectonic plate movement. Although Earth's gravity would prevent a structure from becoming so high, the same amount of material would have been ejected at hotspots like Hawaii but for tectonic drift. And in either case, the volume of both the mountain and any ejected material is trivial compared with the entire planet. And nothing about the structure looks different from typical shield volcanoes. There's no evidence of explosive eruptions.

It is reasonable to see it for what it is, a simple shield volcano that has had insignificant impact on the Martian environment.

Without doing a simple google search to prove it we do know there is tectonic activity on Mars, or has been in the very recent past.
We 'do not know' a lot of things, Chris, like that there is NOT water present on mars at the depths it would interact with magma.
You could easily be looking at the evidence for explosive eruptions in the material the moons are made of. Just imagine, without 'forbidding' any scenario because of your own prejudices, because there is no scientific evidence to support those prejudices. It may look like a typical shield volcano only because the latest eruptions caused it to look that way.

Please note I did not say there is no tectonic activity on Mars. What I said is that there hasn't been much tectonic plate movement, which means that a hotspot would remain under one area much longer than on Earth, allowing a larger volcano to form.

You appear to have made up your mind to choose a hypothesis which is poorly supported by evidence, while ignoring one with much better support. That's not a scientific way of looking at things.

(You might also want to calculate the energy that would be required to launch asteroid-sized bodies into Martian orbit, the forces involved, and compare that to the material strength of the Martian moons.)

[neufer]

(You might also want to calculate the energy that would be required to launch asteroid-sized bodies into Martian orbit, the forces involved, and compare that to the material strength of the Martian moons.)

All trajectories from the surface (that don't permanently leave the planet) re-intersect the surface.

[Chris Peterson]

(You might also want to calculate the energy that would be required to launch asteroid-sized bodies into Martian orbit, the forces involved, and compare that to the material strength of the Martian moons.)

All trajectories from the surface (that don't permanently leave the planet) re-intersect the surface.

True, assuming a purely balistic ejection. Of course, send enough material up (even more unlikely from volcanism) and you may introduce gravitational interactions that could perturb a small amount of the material into a stable orbit. Then that orbit (which would be very eccentric) would need to get circularized, by more interactions.

All of which adds to the argument against volcanic production, and supports either capture or a massive ejection following an impact.

[Evermore]

You appear to have made up your mind to choose a hypothesis which is poorly supported by evidence, while ignoring one with much better support. That's not a scientific way of looking at things.

(You might also want to calculate the energy that would be required to launch asteroid-sized bodies into Martian orbit, the forces involved, and compare that to the material strength of the Martian moons.)

I haven't made up my mind though I firmly believe the volcano origin easily possible, and from much evidence probable. I believe, Chris, you are ignoring evidence which does support the idea, weighing evidence more heavily which supports your chosen idea .. this is natural.

Not nearly as much energy would be required to launch those asteroid-sized bodies into orbit if it were done in successive eruptions, cloudlike material which would gather itself into a body, as in the standard model of planet formation, and Phobos is clearly layered (with Deimos heavily speculated as a captured asteroid.

As Phobos is slowly falling apart it could easily be speculated that its material is 'returning to the surface' as (was it Neufer (?)) in his comment above as normal .. just time delayed in this instance.

Regarding the definition of scientist, a true scientist with a keen mind will only extremely rarely say "NO THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" though of course even Einstein made that error.

[Chris Peterson]

You appear to have made up your mind to choose a hypothesis which is poorly supported by evidence, while ignoring one with much better support. That's not a scientific way of looking at things.

(You might also want to calculate the energy that would be required to launch asteroid-sized bodies into Martian orbit, the forces involved, and compare that to the material strength of the Martian moons.)

I haven't made up my mind though I firmly believe the volcano origin easily possible, and from much evidence probable. I believe, Chris, you are ignoring evidence which does support the idea, weighing evidence more heavily which supports your chosen idea .. this is natural.

Not nearly as much energy would be required to launch those asteroid-sized bodies into orbit if it were done in successive eruptions, cloudlike material which would gather itself into a body, as in the standard model of planet formation, and Phobos is clearly layered (with Deimos heavily speculated as a captured asteroid.

First, we see no evidence of layering on the surface well beyond the shield itself, as we should given your scenario. Second, a planetoid that forms by accretion should not appear layered.

As Phobos is slowly falling apart it could easily be speculated that its material is 'returning to the surface' as (was it Neufer (?)) in his comment above as normal .. just time delayed in this instance.

That's not how gravity works. A ballistically ejected body that doesn't reach escape velocity will enter an elliptical orbit with its apoapsis at the top of flight, and its periapsis at the surface. One orbit later, not millions of orbits later. Phobos is falling apart because of tidal disruption, a totally different phenomenon.

Regarding the definition of scientist, a true scientist with a keen mind will only extremely rarely say "NO THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" though of course even Einstein made that error.

Nobody is saying that. Neither did Einstein.

A good scientist weighs the evidence.

[Evermore]

A good scientist weighs the evidence.

With an unbiased set of scales.

[Evermore]

Regarding the definition of scientist, a true scientist with a keen mind will only extremely rarely say "NO THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" though of course even Einstein made that error.

Nobody is saying that. Neither did Einstein."

I never said Einstein did say that.

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

All trajectories from the surface (that don't permanently leave the planet) re-intersect the surface.

True, assuming a purely balistic ejection. Of course, send enough material up (even more unlikely from volcanism) and you may introduce gravitational interactions that could perturb a small amount of the material into a stable orbit. Then that orbit (which would be very eccentric) would need to get circularized, by more interactions.

The sad thing is that we may never know the real truth.

[Evermore]

Regarding the definition of scientist, a true scientist with a keen mind will only extremely rarely say "NO THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" though of course even Einstein made that error.

Nobody is saying that. Neither did Einstein."

I never said Einstein did say that.

Actually Einstein did say that about something .. regretted it later in life, I can't remember the specifics.

[Chris Peterson]

Nobody is saying that. Neither did Einstein."

I never said Einstein did say that.

Actually Einstein did say that about something .. regretted it later in life, I can't remember the specifics.

I don't think so. He came up with the idea of the cosmological constant, which he later called a mistake (it probably wasn't, though). But there's a huge difference between a scientist being wrong and a scientist claiming something is impossible.

[Evermore]

Of course there are many, volcanoes on Mars, many of them huge, with the planet divided into volcanic provinces .. and in a quick scan I found this interesting inclusion .. "The northwestern edge of the province is characterized by large channels that emerge from several valleys(grabens) on the flanks of Elysium Mons. The grabens may have formed from the subsurface release of large volumes of ground water." And also, mention of volcanic caldera caused by collapse after explosions. I have seen illustrations of volcanoes blowing on earth, blowing in a massive, tall 'jet' rather than an explosion into all directions.

I also found this: "situations that would be considered catastrophic on Earth are the norm on Mars." So a supermassive jet eruption should be considered possible.

Regarding Krakatoa: "The explosion was heard more than 3000 miles away. Volcanic dust blew into the upper atmosphere affecting incoming solar radiation and the earth's weather for several years." (50 kilometres into our atmosphere is recorded.) http://www.ringoffirescience.com/suppor ... lesson.pdf

Regarding the height and thinness of Mars' atmosphere: "On Olympus Mon’s peak, Its pressure is at 30 pascals (0.0044 psi) and in the lowest point of Hellas Planitia it can get as high as 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi). Its average pressure would be 600 pascals (0.087 psi). The scale height of Mar’s atmosphere is around 6.8 miles (11 km)." http://planetfacts.org/the-atmosphere-of-mars/

So, when you piece it all together, with Martian volcanic events often far exceeding earth's, with Mar's much much thinner atmosphere, much taller volcanoes especially in relation to planet size, abundance of sub surface water for creattion of massive explosions, far less gravity, it is incredibly, simply incredibly easy to picture a volcano or volcanoes blowing material into orbit around Mars where it would gather as Phobos, that is, easy for a person with a truly scientific mind open to possibilities.

We know volcanic explosions are accompanied by lighting and other electromagnetic effects .. which could account for the peculiar magnetic properties of Phobos' peculiar dust and indeed the inner 'airy' composition of the moon.
http://miigaik.ru/europlanet.miigaik.ru ... 6.pdf[url]
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ic_Effects

I think the scales should be, at least, evenly balanced at this point with any contrary evidence proposed, regarding the possibility I suggest.

[Evermore]

Nobody is saying that. Neither did Einstein."

I never said Einstein did say that.

Actually Einstein did say that about something .. regretted it later in life, I can't remember the specifics.

I don't think so. He came up with the idea of the cosmological constant, which he later called a mistake (it probably wasn't, though). But there's a huge difference between a scientist being wrong and a scientist claiming something is impossible.

Okay small potatoes really and not a part of the discussion anyway.

[Chris Peterson]

So, when you piece it all together, with Martian volcanic events often far exceeding earth's, with Mar's much much thinner atmosphere, much taller volcanoes especially in relation to planet size, abundance of sub surface water for creattion of massive explosions, far less gravity, it is incredibly, simply incredibly easy to picture a volcano or volcanoes blowing material into orbit around Mars where it would gather as Phobos, that is, easy for a person with a truly scientific mind open to possibilities.

I'm afraid your ignorance of different types of volcanoes, of material strength, of martian tectonics and geology, and of orbital dynamics is causing you to support a hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong. So wrong that you don't find scientists spending much time considering it. There is no evidence supporting it, and vast amounts which argue against it.

You will believe what you believe, for whatever reasons. Do not confuse those reasons with good science, however.

[Evermore]

So, when you piece it all together, with Martian volcanic events often far exceeding earth's, with Mar's much much thinner atmosphere, much taller volcanoes especially in relation to planet size, abundance of sub surface water for creattion of massive explosions, far less gravity, it is incredibly, simply incredibly easy to picture a volcano or volcanoes blowing material into orbit around Mars where it would gather as Phobos, that is, easy for a person with a truly scientific mind open to possibilities.

I'm afraid your ignorance of different types of volcanoes, of material strength, of martian tectonics and geology, and of orbital dynamics is causing you to support a hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong. So wrong that you don't find scientists spending much time considering it. There is no evidence supporting it, and vast amounts which argue against it.

You will believe what you believe, for whatever reasons. Do not confuse those reasons with good science, however.

Chris, I did not have to read beyond your, "... your ignorance of ..." to appreciate the depths of your desperate longings to remain correct in your own mind regarding any discussion .. however, your "a hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong" shows you have hope for achieving higher thought processes which will free you from your perception that you are the only correct human being on this planet .. so I did read beyond your insult (which you will of course say was not an insult, merely a statement of fact,) and and I saw that you wrote "you don't find scientists spending much time considering it (my proposal.) So you admit scientists are spending time considering my proposal, but add "There is no evidence supporting it ..." which of course ignores everything I included, all the urls, facts, etc. So you see, Chris, you view evidence not as evidence unless it supports your personal conviction. That is humanly understandable, and a huge error on your part, as were the huge errors leading to flat earth theory, sun centered universe, etc.

Here is some material you might consider glancing over .. which you seem to do in any case when discussion opposes your opinion .. glance over .. however, there is a lot of material in this url, so even if you glance over it you will gain. https://books.google.ca/books?id=F_cvPN ... os&f=false

Best Wishes .. and hoping your vindictive nature will pass, that you will allow your mind the freedom to be led to higher pathways, and that you will set a more scientific and pleasant example for this forum.

[geckzilla]

Here is some material you might consider glancing over .. which you seem to do in any case when discussion opposes your opinion .. glance over .. however, there is a lot of material in this url, so even if you glance over it you will gain. https://books.google.ca/books?id=F_cvPN ... os&f=false

Do you realize that this chapter you have linked to, titled Grooves of Phobos does not even discuss the formation of Phobos itself? It is all about the grooves on Phobos.